Comments about ‘Rick Warren: Religious liberty the civil rights issue of the next decade’

Here is how freedom works: You are free to own a gun - you are not free to use
that gun to take away my rights. You are free to have a religion, you are not
free to use that religion to take away my rights.

My decision to own
a sword instead if a gun is not an infringement on your freedom to own a gun,
nor does it undermine your decision to own a gun. My decision to engage in
behavior

(Continued) not supported or condoned by your religion is not an infringement of
your right to not engage in that behavior nor does it undermine your right not
to engage in that behavior.

As an employer, you do not have the
right to force you employees to own a gun, nor do you have the right to prohibit
them from owning one. As an employer, you do not have the right to force your
religious beliefs and practices on your employees, nor do you have the right to
prohibit them from using their wages or benefits for products or practices
supported by their religious beliefs.

I see this over and over again. If I refuse to allow someone who is black or
jewish or Mormon to rent an apartment from me that is illegal discrimination.
Why should I be given an exception if I claim my prejudice is rooting in my
religious belief? That isn't religious liberty.

@ Twin Lights You wrote: "Religion includes values. Voters of whatever
stripe are free to act on their values, whatever they may be."

I
agree 100% with you.

The law requires that every employer provides
Health Care to his/her employees, the whole package. It should be up to the
employee if he or she uses certain items in that Health Plan, according to
his/her values, whatever they may be.

The law doesn't impose on
anyone to use contraception. What the law requires that everyone has access to
the same benefits in order to decide according to their personal values. That is
freedom.

Abortions in the U.S. have declined 5% in the last couple
of years, the trend will continue. Why are we having less abortions? Because
more people are using "more effective" methods of contraception.

Th religious right loves feeling victimized when people stop listening
to their tired litany.

@ Twin Lights: Of course people vote according to their values - but some
things, such as the rights of others, should never be up for a vote. Just
because my religion disagrees with a right you have that does not give me the
right to demand the opportunity to vote away your right and then claim that my
inability to vote away your right infringes on my religious freedom.

We are a pluralistic nation. Many people have beliefs that others do not
share. This multiplicity of beliefs is not a threat to your freedom to believe
and worship as you wish. If the only argument you can present against the
actions of another is that those actions conflict with your religious beliefs,
than there is no societal harm and no reason to restrict the other's right
to engage in that action.

"The law requires that every employer provides Health
Care to his/her employees, the whole package. It should be up to the employee if
he or she uses certain items in that Health Plan, according to his/her values,
whatever they may be."

-----

It should be up to the
employer to decide whether or not to offer such health care. If an employee
wants health care, he/she can go to an employer that offers it. If an employee
wants health care with a contraceptive plan, he/she can go to an employer who
offers it.

I wouldn't expect a Catholic bookstore to sell Mormon
books. Nor would I expect a gay/lesbian store to sell Mormon paraphernalia. That
is not much different that forcing an employer to offer health care against the
employer's wishes.

That is how America should work - and used to
work before the left's anti-freedom influence.

No, if religious institution wish to participate in
activities in the mainstream marketplace then they must abide by the rules that
others must as well. For example we do not allow producers of religious theme
foods such as Halal to escape food safety rules. The same thing should apply to
businesses that participate in the general marketplace.

If a
religious institution such as a church is forced to provide care that goes
against their beliefs then I would be with you. But the ACA grants waivers like
these to religious organizations. Schools and hospitals affiliated with
religion are not religious organizations.

@ Utes Fan You wrote: "It should be up to the employer to decide
whether or not to offer such health care. If an employee wants health care,
he/she can go to an employer that offers it. If an employee wants health care
with a contraceptive plan, he/she can go to an employer who offers it."

Oh my dear Utes Fan, do you know how childish your comment sound?
Let's talk about changing the definition of job, let's talk about
changing the definition of the relationship between an employer and employee.
Your concept would take us back to the times of indentured servants.

The citizens of the U.S.A. have never enjoyed as much freedom as today,and
yes, you are 100% correct,it is thanks to the left and all of those who are able
to look beyond their personal selfish interest.

I understand and (I think that I) agree. But what rights
are we talking about that are being taken from you?

Baccus0902

First, I don’t feel victimized (not that you necessarily directed
that at me, but just to be clear). Second, I actually think it is fine for
insurance to provide for birth control. But the tricky part with a religious
employer such as the Catholic Church is that if they (hopefully) pony up part of
the cost of the insurance, they can reasonably have the thought that they are
helping to pay for folks using contraception – something to which they are
diametrically opposed.

It is not a matter of whether I agree with
them, but given that it is repugnant to them, should they be forced to provide
it OR give up insuring their employees (a likely worse outcome)?

BTW, I don’t pretend to know the answer. I see both sides. The point
of my prior post was simpler. That to expect religious folks not to vote their
values is foolish. Religion is ALL about values and voting follows folks values
whatever they may be.

The way such
divisive notions polarize and distort is not useful to anyone, and in case you
didn't notice, lost the election.

Diversity, inclusion,
equality, fairness, and openness will always trump arrogant claims to moral
superiority, elitism, exclusion (of the 47%), and imposition of "values"
onto those who don't share the same beliefs.

It isn't an imposition of values to require you
to tolerate people with values other than your own. It is an imposition of
values to vote to require others to adhere to your own. If you aren't
being forced into a same-sex marriage, if you aren't being forced to take
contraceptives, if you aren't being forced to have an abortion, then those
values are not being imposed upon you. You can tolerate them in others, but you
aren't required to do them yourself. That is not an
"imposition".

@TwinLights;

The non-religious also
have values. They may or may not be the same as your own, but they are still
values. To imply otherwise is arrogant and dismissive of other people. You
simply assume that your values are the only correct values. Judge not lest ye
be judged; you really can't know for certain until you end up at the
judgement seat.

I think both my posts indicated that all kinds of folks have
values. I have no doubt that non-religious have values. I did not think I
implied otherwise. Rather I was simply noting that because religions (of all
types) include values it would be naive to suppose that religious folks will not
vote according to their values. Nothing more.

I try not to assume my
values are the only correct ones. Over a lifetime, I do feel those I have
adopted have meaning and permanence but I have friends and family with different
values and I try to respect them and their values. Honestly, I think you were
reading too much into my post.

As for the judgement seat. No
worries. Only one will exercise judgement. I will gladly leave that task to
him.

You wrote: "I try not to assume my values are the
only correct ones. Over a lifetime, I do feel those I have adopted have meaning
and permanence but I have friends and family with different values and I try to
respect them and their values".

My friend, I think we all are on
the same boat. Some people just seem to have more difficulties in accepting that
"their truth" is not necessarily somebody else's truth.

"Oh my dear Utes Fan, do you know how childish your
comment sound? Your concept would take us back to the times of indentured
servants."

"it is thanks to the left and all of those who are
able to look beyond their personal selfish interest."

-------------Childish? Selfish? I know several employers who are looking
to scale back employees from full-time to part-time or lay off employees to be
able to afford the forced health care requirement.

You might want to
dispense with the labels, get back to common sense, study basic economics, and
come back with intelligent arguments. Here I will help you with some logic that
is taught in Junior High school: if an employer has a certain amount of revenue
and suddenly that revenue decreases due to increased costs such as forced health
care, then that employer must cut back on expenses. Since payroll is usually the
biggest expense for small or medium sized businesses, they will most likely have
to layoff or cut employees to part-time in order to afford the additional
expenses due to being forced to cover health care.

Healthcare coverage (insurance) in America is unique in the way it is provided
by employers as a part of compensation. Few industrialized countries do that.

But as a form of compensation, health insurance coverage is like other
compensation such as a paycheck, a 401K, stock options, tuition reimbursement,
etc.

So, consider how absurd it would be for an employer to claim the
right, in the name of "religious freedom", to force their employees to
refrain from spending their paychecks on alcohol, tea, or tobacco - because the
EMPLOYER doesn't "believe in it" for arbitrary "religious
reasons"!

How absurd for an employer to presume to govern how an
employee allocates the 401K funds - forbidding employees from taking out a loan
against 401K funds to buy a boat for the lake on Sundays - because the EMPLOYER
believes in keeping the sabbath "holy".

Stop trying to force
others to abide by your religious beliefs, and then crying "religious
freedom is being attacked" when you are not allowed to do it!